Re: Operationalize orthogonality

>>"Tony D" <tonyisyourpal_at_netscape.net> wrote in message
>>news:1149504303.205324.83320_at_j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>x wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>How complicated! It would not be easyer to follow Mr. Codd advice ?
>>>>Domains, not types.
>>
>>>And the difference between a domain and a type is what ? Precisely ?
>>
>>The "standard" answer would be "educate yourself". :-)

> > Alternatively, you could attempt a non-standard answer ?

The answer depends on whether one accepts specialization by constraint
as specifying a new type. If one does, then domain and type are
synonymous. If one does not, then a domain is generally a specified
subset of some type used in a specified context.

>>I don't know how "precisely" you want me to be.

> > As precise as you need to be to point out what you believe the> difference between a domain and a type is.> >

>>I would say that my current understanding of this (because I have not yet
>>read Codd's 1990 book - which I strongly recommend because I browsed it) is
>>that domains do not include any kind of operator.

> > So, if domains include no operators, what can you do with them ?> >

>>What is your opinion ?

> > In this context, I equate the terms domain and type - as mentioned in> the presentation pointed to elsewhere on this thread. (I don't,> however, equate classes with domains or types - principally because (a)> I'm not 100% clear on what a class is exactly, and (b) from what I do> understand about classes & objects, there is a dynamic element to them> that I wouldn't expect to find in a domain or type. I am open to> persuasion on these points.)

Neither are the OO proponents.

That comes from the frequent use of 'object' as synonymous with
'variable'. However, 'object' gets used for a lot of different things too.